promoting instructional change inpromoting instructional...

Promoting Instructional Change inPromoting Instructional Change in New Faculty

Charles HendersonW t Mi hi U i itWestern Michigan University

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/

Abstract

Roughly 300 new physics faculty are hired each year into tenure track positions at degree granting physicsinto tenure-track positions at degree granting physics departments. These new faculty often have little preparation for their teaching roles and frequently struggle with their teaching responsibilities Thus anstruggle with their teaching responsibilities. Thus, an opportunity exists for the physics education research (PER) community to help new faculty in their teaching and promote the spread of instructional strategies andand promote the spread of instructional strategies and materials based on PER. This talk will discuss the rationale, outcomes, and costs of two strategies for promoting instructional change in new faculty: 1) thepromoting instructional change in new faculty: 1) the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop and 2) co-teaching.

Agenda

Part 1: What do we

Part 2:Physics and

Part 3: Co TeachingWhat do we

know about New Faculty with respect

Physics and Astronomy

New Faculty Workshop

Co-Teaching

with respect to Teaching?

Workshop

•Henderson, C. (2008) Promoting Instructional Change in New Faculty: An Evaluation of the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop, American Journal of Physics, 76 (2), 179-187.•Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Famiano, M. (2009). Promoting Instructional Change via Co-Teaching. American Journal of Physics (Physics Education Research Section), 77 (3), 274-283.

Part 1: What do we Know about new Faculty?

Comprehensive study of 197 new faculty at two universities.

Teaching (comprehensive)Research (doctoral)Research (doctoral)

Conducted interviews and teaching observationsteaching observations during first four semesters.

Boice, R. (1991). New faculty as teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 150-173.

First Semester

Prior to first semester (common concerns)F lt t bli ti d i dFelt pressure to prepare publications and were worried that teaching would suffer in the process

Middle of first semester (common concerns)( )Lecture preparation dominated workweeks -- writing “could wait”A lack of collegial support in all areas but especiallyA lack of collegial support – in all areas, but especially related to teachingWhen asked about what teaching help they needed

D t i i th i t l l f l t diffi ltDetermining the appropriate level of lecture difficulty“Facts-and-Principles Lecturing” dominated instructional activities

Expectations for Second Semester

More Balance between Teaching and Research

Activity Teaching Institution (Expected)

Research Institution (Expected)

Teaching Institution (Actual)

Research Institution (Actual)( p ) ( p ) ( ) ( )

Teaching 8.5 4.8 8.4 4.1Lecture Prep 13.0 7.8 22.4 16.6Scholarly 13 7 8 0 0 7 1 3Scholarly Writing

13.7 8.0 0.7 1.3

Table: Expectations of typical workweek, in hours per week, for 2nd

semester. Made at middle of first semester.

Reality of Second Semester

Teaching still dominates work week, leaving little time for scholarly writing.time for scholarly writing.

(15:1 Teaching:Research ratio at both institutions)Activity Teaching Research Teaching Research

Institution (Expected)

Institution (Expected)

Institution (Actual)

Institution (Actual)

Teaching 8.5 4.8 8.4 4.1Lecture Prep 13.0 7.8 22.4 16.6Scholarly Writing

13.7 8.0 0.7 1.3

Committees - - 3.1 3.8

Table: Actual typical workweek, in hours per week, reported for 2nd

semester.semester.

Reality of Second Semester

Most new faculty focused on content and over prepared for teaching (in the sense of having tooprepared for teaching (in the sense of having too much material to present).Despite having no immediate plans to change their workweeks, new faculty predicted more balanced schedules in the near future. M t f lt i d di t hi tiMost new faculty received mediocre teaching ratings – far worse than they had anticipated.

Third Semester

Teaching still seen as facts-and-principles lecturingContent Knowledge and Enthusiasm were mostContent Knowledge and Enthusiasm were most important teacher characteristics

Plans for Improving Teaching (similar on both campuses) included:

Teaching at lower levels of difficultyPreparing lect res ith better and more organi edPreparing lectures with better and more organized content

Teaching continued to dominate work week.Teaching continued to dominate work week.Began to attribute classroom difficulties to students, specifically their lack of preparation and motivation.

Fourth SemesterStudent evaluations remained mediocre

Faculty tended to attribute poor ratings to students’ y p ginability to handle challenging material.Faculty assumed that their usual plans for improvement (better organization lowered standards) were sufficient(better organization, lowered standards) were sufficient

They almost never sought out advice about alternative styles of teaching that might improve ratings.

Faculty at both campuses were producingFaculty at both campuses were producing manuscripts at rates well below the 1+ per year necessary to meet tenure requirements.With this imbalance in time, new faculty began to express resentment toward the demands of teaching.g

Summary – New FacultyNew Faculty

Equate good teaching with good contentgood content.Teach cautiously and defensively to avoid criticism.Often blame external factors for t hi f il (teaching failures (e.g., poor students, heavy teaching loads)Do not know how to improve their teaching beyond improving g y p glecture content and making assignments and tests easier.

R d ti f B iRecommendations from Boice: •We tend to let new faculty “sink or swim” with respect to teaching. Many sink.•Helping faculty find alternative styles of teaching can make faculty•Helping faculty find alternative styles of teaching can make faculty more productive teachers as well as more productive researchers.

Barriers to Instructional ChangeInstructional Change

• Much decision making is implicit.f

Teaching is Complex

• Lack of how to and principles knowledge can lead to inappropriate modifications of a new instructional strategy.

Teaching is Context Dependent• Depends on student, institution, and teacher characteristics.

Teaching is Context Dependent

• May lead to lower student evaluations (at least initially).

Instructional Change can be Dangerous

May lead to lower student evaluations (at least initially).• May be seen by colleagues as an inappropriate use of time.

Two Approaches to Supporting New FacultyNew Faculty Workshop – Brief i t d ti t dg

e

Principles Co-Teachingintroduction to a variety of types of innovative instruction. D

EPTH

l of K

now

led

Dev

elop

ed)

How toN F lt

Co-Teaching –Immersion in one particular type of

(Lev

el D

Awareness


particular type of innovative instruction

BREADTH(# of Instructional Strategies)

1 many

(# of Instructional Strategies)

Agenda

Part 1: What do we

Part 2:Physics and





Co-Teaching


Workshop


Overview – New Faculty Workshop1. Description of the New Faculty Workshop (NFW)2. Why the NFW should not work2. Why the NFW should not work3. Evidence that the NFW does work4. Possible reasons for success

The New Faculty Workshop

Run by professional i ti AAPTsocieties: AAPT,

AAS, APS

Funded by NSF

NFW Organizers and Advisory Committee:

Susana E Deustua Warren HeinSusana E. Deustua Warren HeinRobert Hilborn Theodore HodappBernard Khoury Kenneth KraneTim McKay Laurie McNeilTim McKay Laurie McNeilSteven Turley

New Faculty WorkshopGoals:

1. Reach a large fraction of new physics and astronomy faculty (25% of all new faculty and rising)faculty. (25% of all new faculty and rising)

2. Help participants develop knowledge about recent developments in physics pedagogy.

3. Have participants integrate workshop ideas and materials into their classrooms.

Activities:Activities:4-day conference at American Center for Physics

Presentations by prominent curriculum developers (e.g., Bob Beichner, Eric Mazur, Lillian McDermott, Evelyn Patterson, David Sokoloff, , , , y , ,Ronald Thornton)Small group breakout/discussion sessions

Limited follow-up at professional meetings

The NFW Should Not Work

1 It is a short (4-day) one-time intervention1. It is a short (4-day), one-time intervention2. It is transmission-oriented

“Faculty development benefits from making use of extended interventions, over a full semester, a year, or more.” (Emerson, 2000, p. 29). , p )Workshops and seminars “are unlikely to produce lasting changes in teacher behavior or lasting impact on students unless participants continue skill practice and receive critical p p pfeedback on their efforts.” (Levinson-Rose, 1981, p. 419).

J. Levinson-Rose and R. J. Menges, "Improving college teaching: A critical review of research," Review of Educational Research 51, 403-434 (1981).

J. D. Emerson and F. Mosteller, "Development programs for college faculty: Preparing for the twenty-first century," in Educational media and technology yearbook 2000, edited by R. M. Branch and M. A. Fitzgerald, 2000), Vol. 25, p. 26-42.

The NFW Does WorkFall 2007 web-based survey

All 690 NFW participants who were still in p pacademia and could be located. Response rate of 76%.

The NFW:Increases knowledge about and attitudes towards gPER-based instructional strategiesResults in changes in teaching behavior

Examples of supporting data will be presented here. More complete support can be found in Henderson (2008).p pp ( )

Knowledge/Use of PER Strategies

I currently useI have used in the past

I am familiar, but have never used

Little or no Knowledge

Astronomy Tutorials 8 7% 5 0% 30 2% 56 1%Astronomy Tutorials 8.7% 5.0% 30.2% 56.1%Collaborative Learning 39.2 17.2 23.0 20.6Cooperative Group Problem Solving 47.2 21.9 22.9 8.0Problem SolvingInteractive Lecture Demonstrations 46.1 24.2 23.4 6.3

Just-In-Time Teaching 22 9 18 0 50 9 8 2Just-In-Time Teaching 22.9 18.0 50.9 8.2Peer Instruction 54.1 21.4 22.4 2.1Realtime Physics 5.2 7.5 46.6 40.7Personal Response Personal Response Systems 32.6 15.0 43.7 8.7

Physlets 19.7 21.4 41.3 17.5Tutorials in Introductory Tutorials in Introductory Physics 13.1 20.9 45.8 20.3

Positive Attitudes

11 Ri ht ft th N F lt11. Right after the New Faculty Workshop weekend were you interested in incorporating some of p gthe workshop ideas into your teaching?

Yes 93 7%Yes 93.7%No 2.1

I don't recall 4 2I don t recall 4.2

Changes in Instructional Practices

Self-Assessment of Overall Teaching Style

50 060.070.0

20.030.040.050.0

Per

cent Pre-NFW

Current

0.010.0

Highly Mostly Mostly Highlytraditional traditional

with somealternativefeatures

alternativewith sometraditionalfeatures

alternative

features features

Current Instructional Practices Compared to Other Faculty in Their Departmenty p

70.0

50.0

60.0 Participant Self-Report

Department Chair Report

30.0

40.0

Perc

ent

10.0

20.0

0.0significantly

moretraditional

a little moretraditional

about thesame

a little morealternative

significantlymore

alternati etraditional alternative

Why is the NFW Effective?

Hypothesis: It is a gateway i th t i t d

Hypothesis: It is a gateway i th t i t dexperience that introduces

faculty to PER-based instruction and motivates

experience that introduces faculty to PER-based instruction and motivates them to work on instructional improvement

ft th NFW

them to work on instructional improvement

ft th NFWafter the NFW. after the NFW.

Evidence for Gateway Theoryy yParticipant self-report

•It [the NFW] provided an important seed, and in that sense has influenced much of what I've done. •It's [the NFW] biggest impact was to make me

f hi i I l d laware of teaching issues. It led me to later participate in many other teaching workshops.

Evidence for the Gateway Theory:More Changes Made As Time PassesMore Changes Made As Time Passes

How much has your teaching changed since yourHow much has your teaching changed since your participation in the NFW?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1996199719981998199920002001

Not at allSomewhat

2002200320042005

ConsiderablyFully

2006All

Why is the NFW an Effective Gateway Experience(when many other programs are not)?

Keys to the success of the NFW may be that:

Disciplinary cultures can have a significant impact on faculty b h i 1

Disciplinary cultures can have a significant impact on faculty b h i 1

1) It is sponsored and run by three major disciplinary organizations.

2) It introduces participants to a

behavior.1behavior.1

Faculty may be skeptical ofFaculty may be skeptical of2) It introduces participants to a wide variety of PER-based instructional strategies and materials

Faculty may be skeptical of workshops that “sell” one particular strategy.2

Faculty may be skeptical of workshops that “sell” one particular strategy.2

materials.3) Presentations are made by the

leading curriculum developers in PER

Reputation of the reformer and/or their institution impact h f i

Reputation of the reformer and/or their institution impact h f iPER.

1. J. S. Fairweather, Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life (Allyn and

how a reform message is received.3how a reform message is received.3

y ( yBacon., Boston, 1996).

2. C. Henderson and M. Dancy, "Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations,” American Journal of Physics (Physics Education Research Section), 76 (1), 79-91, 2008.

3. J. Foertsch, S. B. Millar, L. Squire, and R. Gunter, Persuading professors: A study of the dissemination of educational reform in research institutions (University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD Center, Madison, 1997).

Summary – New Faculty Workshop

The NFW has been effective in meeting its goals of introducing new faculty to PER-based ideasof introducing new faculty to PER-based ideas and materials and motivating faculty to try these ideas and materials.

Agenda

Part 1: What do we

Part 2:Physics and





Co-Teaching


Workshop


Co-Teaching: Who?

CH: Experienced faculty member in WMU PhysTEC courses experienced PER researcherPhysTEC courses, experienced PER researcher with knowledge about many PER instructional interventions, co-teaching participant

MF: New faculty member in WMU Physics Dept., all prior teaching experience as a TA, some familiarity with PER via. grad study at OSU, co-t hi ti i tteaching participant

AB: Faculty member in college of education, experience evaluating instructional changes inexperience evaluating instructional changes in college faculty, outside observer of co-teaching

Co-Teaching: Why?

Goal: Enculturate MF into PhysTEC teachingHelp MF understand how and why PhysTECHelp MF understand how and why PhysTECcourses work through direct experience – and to see that it does work. Reduce the risks of instructional experimentation by working with an experienced i t tinstructor.Help MF develop a repertoire of materials and strategies that can be used in subsequentstrategies that can be used in subsequent PhysTEC-style courses.

Co-Teaching*: What?

Fall 2005: CH and MF co-taught Phys 2050: Introductory Calculus-Based MechanicsIntroductory Calculus Based Mechanics

CH and MF alternate being in charge of class each weekWeekly meetings between CH and MF to reflect on previous week and discuss initial plans for coming weekCourse structure set up by CH to support PhysTEC design principlesMF had access to materials used by CH in previous semesters

S i 2006 MF t h Ph 2050 hiSpring 2006: MF teaches Phys 2050 on his ownData Collected

Individual interviews (conducted by AB) with CH and MF at beginning, middle, end of semester.Teaching observations (conducted by AB) of CH and MF at beginning, middle, end of semester.

* More info about co-teaching in K-12 settings is available in Roth, W.-M. and Tobin, K. (2002) At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching, Peter Lang.

Results: MF Instructional Practices

Observed instructional practices were consistent ith Ph sTEC principles from the startwith PhysTEC principles from the startFew differences observed between MF and CH

MF instruction likely would have been moreMF instruction likely would have been more traditional without co-teaching:

“I probably wouldn’t do as many in-class activities as we are doing now. . . . and so it will probably be a little bit more likedoing now. . . . and so it will probably be a little bit more like the formal lecture.” (F1#228-233)

Results: MF Beliefs and IntentionsInitial Beliefs: Skeptical

“When I first came I was skeptical about having students do p gnothing but problems in class. Just sort of standing by while they do problems.” (F2#84-87)

Mid-term Beliefs: Some parts are OKMid term Beliefs: Some parts are OK“It taught me something that I am going to adopt aspects of in future courses. You know, pick up the things that I think are working really well and the interactive and theare working really well and the interactive and the discussions, things that are really useful.” (F2#194-198)

End of term Beliefs: It is working very well“M l i i t b i il t h t did l t“My class is going to be very similar to what we did last semester, even the structure will be the same structure. It’s going to be almost identical.” (F3#272-273)

Conclusions1. It worked!

Significant changes documented in beliefs and intentions.2 Course structure was important2. Course structure was important.

Practices started out in PhysTEC mode and did not change. This was likely due to course structure that constrained possibilities.

Th i3. The entire semester was necessaryAlthough practices did not change, beliefs and intentions continued to change throughout the semester.

4 Co-teaching was important4. Co teaching was importantNot student-teacher or mentor-mentee, but collegial relationship. “Well the thing that I liked the most about this is it wasn’t like I was Charles’ protégé. He recognizes me as a colleague and we were teaching this class together it wasn’t like teacherand we were teaching this class together. . . . it wasn’t like teacher-apprenticeship which at this level it might seem sort of insulting.” (F3#283-286)

Why is Co-Teaching Effective?

Hypothesis: It is an immersion experience where facultyHypothesis: It is an immersion experience where facultyexperience where faculty develop how to and principles knowledge by performing the

experience where faculty develop how to and principles knowledge by performing the target activity alongside an expert for an extended period of time

target activity alongside an expert for an extended period of timeof time.of time.

Summary – Co TeachingCo-teaching is a cost-effective model that shows significant promise as a way to promote research-consistent instruction in new facultyconsistent instruction in new faculty.It may also be an applicable for graduate students or experienced faculty.

ConclusionsNew faculty typically struggle with their teaching and need additional support.NFW and Co Teaching can help and offerNFW and Co-Teaching can help and offer complementary strengths.

New Faculty Workshop Co TeachingNew Faculty Workshop Co-TeachingUpsides •Expose faculty to a wide

variety of instructional strategies and ideas

•Provides direct experience with a particular instructional strategythat works in the given contextstrategies and ideas.

•Sponsored and run by majordisciplinary organizations.•Features prominent

i l d l

that works in the given context.•Results in a set of instructional materials.•Removes much of the risk of i t ti l i ticurriculum developers. instructional innovation.

Downsides •Requires considerable additional learning after NFW.•Does not help faculty in the

•Restricts faculty to a single instructional strategy.•Requires the availability of an•Does not help faculty in the

customization process.•Requires the availability of anappropriate ‘master teacher’.

Thank You

Part 1: What do we

Part 2:Physics and





Co-Teaching


Workshop


promoting instructional change inpromoting instructional...

Documents